This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article contains too much of his Islamic turnover, which played only the later part of Junaid's life. It should rather focus on his rise to music stardome more so that we can have a balanced view of this artist's life.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserthawks (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 August 2006
--
This needs some serious work. Perhaps the information about him could be in the following format:
First Paragraph: His claim to Fame
Second Paragraph: Biographical information, formal training
Third Paragraph: Vital Signs
Forth Paragraph: Solo Career
Fifth Paragraph: Fashion
Sixth Paragraph: His recent turn towards religion and his controversial status
Jamshed has been accused by many inner circles in Pakistan ...
Please add sources for this (and the following sentences). Currently, it is nothing but a point of view. Who are the "inner circles", and where is a source for the claim of the criticism? Thanks for adding it, Ibn Battuta23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salaam, I added this article to the Islamic Scholar's group here. I am making the assumption that you are somewhat new to beginning articles in this Wikipedia. Please, if you have any questions, visit my talk page! I have been working on the Yusuf Islam article, as my interest is in the biographies of musicians. I wish to point out a few errors here:
When you list hit SONGS, you only put quote marks like "this" on the songs. When you discuss a ALBUM (CD or DVD too), you use these two marks around the album. I tried to fix some at the introduction, but am not familiar with the songs.
All statements of FACT must have a REFERENCE. You must prove it happened. You must state the source, date, and do it so it is clear and understandable. For example, if the person had a very popular hit song, you must prove it, saying what credible newspaper, website (not his), book, or magazine proved that it is true. I will show you how if you ask.
Nothing may be listed, the way the music is listed on the site, telling people where they can buy it. This is an encyclopedia. It can not be used for commercial purposes, even to just let someone know. Later when you make pages for each album, you can provide the link to the website where people can find it, but not on the main page. Let me know if you wish some help, checking grammar, or whatever you need. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search for references found LOTS of self promotation web pages, and no published (gBooks) references, no mention of notability in article fails WP:N.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This blasphemy allegation is very emotionally charged and it will need calm and dispassionate handling by Wikipedia editors. It is still in progress; it's unfolding as we speak. So we should refrain from reaching conclusions not found in the sources or based on our own point of view. As editors we need to be objective. We also need to write in careful, neutral and correct English and provide reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources. Pleased discuss the changes you want to make on this talk page before you add them on the Jamshed bio page itself. A neutral point of view is absolutely essential. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: it cannot be stated or implied that Jamshed HAS committed blasphemy. It is just an ALLEGATION at this stage. Thus, the section can't be titled "Blasphemy". Please don't start an edit war on this issue. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Junaid Jamshed has himself admitted committing blasphemy, on his very official Facebook page. When the living person has himself admitted committing blasphemy, it can be well understood that the blasphemy has taken place and it is a fact, not an allegation. Even if it is an allegation, the mere title "Blasphemy" doesn't amount to the conviction of blasphemy, if it were so, the title would be "the conviction of blasphemy", hence mere the title "Blasphemy" will not lend any dent onto the neutrality in question. Further, the words saying that he apologized for it, however emotionally, doesn't absolve him of the fact that he committed the blasphemy (which he himself admitted) and hence the same shall be removed, because they suggest favorable inclination to the living person. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within the first thirty-five seconds of the video, any Urdu speaker can interpret and affirm that Junaid Jamshed has accepted committing the blasphemy, owing to the self-admitted "ignorance" and then followed the emotional apology. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blasphemy is "contemptuous or any act or speech 'against the honor of God or a sacred entity'", from 0:22 to 0:34 seconds of the video, Junaid Jamshed, the living person, clearly admits--written here in Roman Urdu, "Mai kuch aisi intehai na-munasib baatein keh gaya, jo iin hazraat ke shaan ke khilaaf hain" translated into English as, "I spoke such extremely inappropriate things that are 'blasphemous' towards these holy personages", the words "shaan ke khilaaf" is translated as "against the honor" meaning blasphemous. The aforementioned proves that the living person has made an admittance/confession of blasphemy, himself. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I request a third person's "fair" translation of Junaid Jamshed's official apology video on Facebook. Even forget about that and forget about my own translation, admitted, the translation I made is "wrong" just for the sake of the argument. I will quote the translation of the pertinent part from the very page provided hereon by my opponent editor, "Sometime ago due to ignorance, lack of knowledge and ignorance I uttered some words regarding Amma (mother) Sayyida Aisha (RA) [sobbing] which were against the grandeur and status of such a personality, it was my mistake." What little doubt should remain now? "Which were against the granduer and status of such a personality" How is this part any different from what I translated, firstly? Secondly, isn't blasphemy "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred beings/things"? Exactly the mistake the living person himself concurs he made, evidenced by the living person's own words (translated by the source of the opponent editor) "it was my mistake", said immediately following the admittance of blasphemy, rendering unambiguous any other interpretation with regard to what the mistake was. Though the living person has apologized for it, but the fact that he has committed the blasphemy is one that he did not himself deny, then how can a supposedly "neutral" editor deny it? The title I insist upon is not the "Confession of Blasphemy" even though the confession to the blasphemy has been made "officially" by the living person through the video, I urge upon the middle way that is reversion of the title to its original form, "Blasphemy", as it is right now. I have a significant number of changes to do to the article concerning the blasphemy, but I am restraining myself too, in the honor of the rules formulated by respected Wikipedia administrators and in the light of reaching a compromise maintaining neutrality. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly regretted that even though the confession of blasphemy has been made by the living person himself, instead of discussing the matter logically here and proving me wrong evidentially and backing the points up with logic and strong reasoning, the opponent editor is bent upon removing this fact and went to edit the article--leaving only the apology part and removing the confession of blasphemy part; I am against the mentioning of the apology part too, but I did not remove the apology part in order to stop the edit war and to respect the opponent's viewpoint too. The opponent editor should take this into account that to reach a consensus, both the commission of blasphemy admitted by the living person as well as the apology made by him should stay on the Wikipedia page to keep the blasphemy issue as neutral as possible. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, TheKnightoftheHeart, Wikipedia policy errs on the side of caution regarding controversial claims about a living person. If Jamshed clearly admits to blasphemy, and not merely to making a deeply regretted mistake, or if a judicial body convicts him of blasphemy, then that will be included in the article (with a reliable source). But we can't yet even agree that he admitted blasphemy. I provided an alternative translation. So did another editor. And my own listening of the video hears something different in this regard to what you hear. So it's reasonable to leave the claim out until it is established more reliably. I am not your opponent. I am not defending Jamshed. I merely want a reliable, neutral and well-referenced page that contains no potentially harmful claims about a living person. Salam and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not defended my viewpoint based on my own translation, I'd like you to mind that, but I did that based on your own source's translation. The living person has himself said in the clearest words, about his own words in the blasphemy, saying "which were against the grandeur and status of such a personality, it was my mistake." These are the words per your own source's translation, not mine, just contend how the same words as quoted do not fall in the definition of blasphemy. Blasphemy is "contemptuous or any act or speech 'against the honor of God or a sacred entity'", or is it not? The commission of blasphemy is very much there, proven by your own source. I am against the mentioning of apology, but that is my own view, yet I keep that aside in order to be more neutral; what you deem is controversial should not be unilaterally regarded as controversial alone. When the living person himself has officially admitted something, it should be made part of the Wikipedia page. So I propose and will not back out from this position that both the apology part as well as admission of committing blasphemy on the part of the living person, mind it, not the conviction of blasphemy, should stay on the page. I have not made part of the page the conviction of blasphemy which is a matter that has to be decided by the relevant court of law and the same procedure is barred by the Wikipedia rules of editing, I have mentioned only the admission of blasphemy on the part of the living person that he has, himself, "officially", made, which is very well-referenced. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation[edit]
Disclaimer: George Custer's Sabre asked me to comment, and I don't have any real experience of this subject area; I'm simply here as a neutral editor. To me, "who, of late, has been declared a blasphemer," should absolutely not be at the start of the lead; even if it is accurate and even if it were neutral, it is absolutely not in line with the regular Wikipedia procedure of writing a lead. It is so out of place that I have removed it - the only thing I intend to remove myself at this point.
Secondly, there are a hell of a lot of references being used for this claim, and yet, are any of them reliable? There's a Facebook video there from what I assume is his official Facebook page; if it is, fine. There is no need, however, for Daily Motion, ZemTV (which is user-submitted) or UrduWire videos, neither of which I believe is a reliable source, to be linked in as well; they also may well be copyright violations if they contain footage from the Facebook video on their server. I can't provide any analysis on the "confession", because I don't speak the language.
Thirdly, let's get to the information about the police investigation. Now, those sources look a lot better, and actually appear to verify the claim that he has confessed/apologized. The Pakistan Today source that is from their satire section absolutely needs to go, and I would personally say that the only source needed to verify this is the Business Insider one, which does not have a comment's section and is also better organized than the other two, which appear to have exactly the same information.
Fourthly, let's get to the specific text used for the blasphemy section, which I agree should be titled something like "Allegations of blasphemy". This section is based on those video refs again, which also means that the vast majority of it needs some references. Sentences such as "Jamshed is currently incommunicado and his whereabouts are unclear." and "However, in most cases when the government failed to take action in this respect, blasphemers have been shot or killed." do not belong in an encyclopedia, much less in a BLP, and they should be removed altogether in my opinion.
Finally, I've got another note to make, and that is the line "Jamshed got into a controversy when he endorsed Lays Chips in Pakistan. Several religious scholars criticized his statements saying Lays are halal" should not be present in the lead; it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text, and it is sourced to a "current affairs and politics blog". Now, obviously I have no idea if this is one of those rare, respectable blogs... but it is my opinion that this is just a non-notable event that shouldn't be anywhere in the article. Long-winded analysis over. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lukeno94, thank you for your judicious assessment. So where do we go from here? It seems outrageous to leave the Jamshed bio page as it is, with a clear accusation (in the article but also in the lead) of blasphemy, an allegation that has not been proven and for which he has not confessed (see above on this talk page). I'm scared to edit more right now in case I violate the 3RR or find myself accused of edit warring. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing, in my opinion, is to get a third opinion on what the English translation of what Jamshed said is from another, neutral, Urdu speaker. I think this is vital given that a large amount of the current evidence centers around his Facebook apology/confession - and exactly which of those two it was. Secondly, we need more reliable sources on this, and to see exactly what they say; presenting some Urdu ones would be a good idea as well, since the original confession is in Urdu, and I would assume that this would reduce any chance of things being lost in translation prior to the reliable analysis. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am Mbcap and also a very new editor. I hope I can help, especially since I have no interest in the subject and I do not hold an opinion on this issue. I shall translate his facebook video if that would help. It is as follows:
Begin translation:
In the name of Allah the most merciful, most beneficient.
We praise Him and we send salutations upon his noble Messenge
Dear respected brothers, friends, elders, sisters. Some time ago in a talk, due to lack of knowledge and ignorance, I said something innapriate about Aisha (wife of Prophet Mohammad.saw) which was in contrast to her. This is my mistake and that mistake is due to my ignorance, my lack of knowledge. I am not an Alim (a scholar) or mufti. I want to admit to this mistake to the entire ummah (muslim collective). I sincerely from my heart repent to Allah, that Allah forgives me. In front of you I put together my hands and ask (maybe beg) you to forgive me. This has been my mistake and I regret my mistake. I did not do this with intention or ......(can't translate word) because the one who mocks the Prophet, the Sahaba or wives of the prophet, he has (cries here) left his religion. For this reason I once again for forgiveness and ask you to forgieve me. I hope you can forgive your brother. And I would like to say from my heart, I am thankful to those brothers who pointed out my indescretion. I request that you make dua to Allah to provide reconciliation. I have been for 17 years doing dawah and I give 3 talks a day. I have made just one mistake, the prophets are infallible, the rest of us are all capable of mistakes. What I did was not intentional, it happened due to my mistake. The mistake is not at all associated with Tablighi Jamaat. Once again, please forgive this brother of yours.
End translation
The brackets are there to expalin, it is not part of the text. I am not a native speaker, just seen a lot of pakistani TV. I think the translation is about 95% accurate. The mistakes would be in syntax and there is one word I did not know the meaning of. I can not comment on this information being in the article because I have no clue what the mistake he is referring to is, he does not elaborate on this in the video. Hope this helps. Mbcap (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they're verifiable as a primary source, then they can be, assuming they're used carefully. Same goes for YouTube. Thanks Mbcap for giving us what your take on the translation is :) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of BLP guidelines designed to protect living persions[edit]
The Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people clearly state:『Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.』Accusatory edits on this page have reached this level. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the words "unsourced or poorly sourced" over and over again, I have added six very reliable sources including one official source to my standpoint and can add six more, upon request. Here too, by your own reference to the rules, you fail to make a point, nor are you, under any circumstance, willing to reach any understanding whatsoever, which is proof enough you are bent upon the edit war.TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the official source in which the living person himself makes an admission of committing blasphemy a poor source? I do not think so. So when you are willing to reach an understanding, do indicate that.TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will have to agree with Lukeno94 and GeorgeCustersSabre. It is clear, at least to me from the video (whether reliable or not) that he does not admit to blasphemy. He admits to a mistake. He does not elaborate on the mistake. I think it has been sensibly stated that when dealing with biographies of living people we must use credible sources. The issue in this instance is that there are two problems:
1)Sources are not reliable
2)Person in question does not admit to the allegations
Please advise me if I am wrong but would it not be better to rid the article of this allegation and just mention the police investigation. Once the authorities have completed their due diligence, we will have a credible source with which to elaborate more on the issue. Mbcap (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best, yeah... but the odds of TheKnightoftheHeart agreeing to that are approximately nil, particularly since they fight so hard to keep the allegation in the article. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)17:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your link GeorgeCustersSabre on Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people, which led me to WP:BLPCRIME. As a I mentioned before I am new to wiki and also this article so have been doing a lot of reading. There are some heavy allegations on the article page, both in the lead and a subsection nearer the end of the article. In both sections the statement reads that he has admitted to allegations of blasphemy. There is no admission of committing blasphemy in the video and I can see that an editor above also concurs regarding the issue. As per the guidelines I read, I think we should amend the article immediately. At least to change that statement to 'said person apologised for an unqualified mistake' for the interim period till we reach a final resolution. Am I alowed to do that? I do not want to start an edit war or worse get banned so I will wait for further advice. Mbcap (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been fully protected due to the editwar for a couple of days, so only admins can edit it; however, User:Wifione seems to have very kindly reverted back to the previous version. It's still imperfect, with all of the referencing issues I pointed out, not to mention some formatting issues, but at least the main part of the BLP issue is gone - for now. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recency of the protection, no other administrator might be ready to revert an administrative action and unprotect the page unilaterally, including me. But there's a solution. Write to the administrator who protected the page, mentioning that the editor causing the edit warring has been blocked indefinitely by me. Request the administrator to open the protection on the page. That would help. Thanks. WifioneMessage18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through the article and made a whole bunch of changes. Some of them were related to the blasphemy allegations, but most of them were just generally sorting out this mess; the level of promotion in the language used was ridiculous, and is still pretty high. I've also sorted out most of the references, but there are some that don't really correspond to this article. In short, this article needs a lot of work to be even remotely neutral. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)11:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All reliable sources are stating 'feared dead'. It's wrong to declare him dead on Wikipedia article based on assumption. It'd be better to wait for official confirmation. sami talk13:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have Late Junaid Jamsheds autograph which i want to share on here. Im unable to due to this page having protection now. How can i share? Muslimm786 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Death heading it states "He is survived by his first wife Ayesha, three sons, and a daughter". He only had ONE wife, and his wife passed away with him. Please make the correct edits!
Please remove the quote from the interview with Shoaib Mansoor in 2007, it defies the name of islam ,and suggests him leaving music was a bad thing. it defies the name of islam and such a thing should be removed. Sid n (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Junaid Jamshed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Junaid Jamshed was a Nice and Kind man he devoted his life into Islam and Then started doing Religious Islamic Music (Nasheeds) and even joined the tabligi Jamat (religious jamat in Pakistan) 37.211.67.151 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Please post suggested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide published reliable sources for any edit request. Also, all these details seem to be already mentioned in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Junaid Jamshed's mother, Nafeesa Akbar Khan, is said to be the granddaughter of the Nawab of Loharu. Does anybody know the name of that Nawab? Danishjaveed (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Mr. Junaid Jamshed always wished to be known as preacher of Islam not as musician it was his past but in this article there is no any section about his preacher where he delivered and contributions in this field as compared to music career which is quite long which gives perception as his life mostly consumed in music and it had profound effect on his life 182.190.218.195 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His naat listed as his songs and second wife[edit]
Comment:-I'm not sure about the motives served by the said change.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Religion mentions in infoboxes is only for people where the religion is a substantial impact on their notability. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done the quotation appears correct and is not WP:UNDUE - to remove it would only be for PoV purposes - Arjayay (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
